It’s called having a strategy, jackass.
Nope. Read the post again, for comprehension this time. Note there is no strategy. In fact, the post is a request for a strategy. Your interpretation of the content was exactly wrong! This is why you were told reading for comprehension is such a critical life skill.
If you fail at reading for comprehension, then just like OP looking to anonymous strangers on an internet site for guidance regarding participation on other anonymous internet sites, you probably shouldn’t be allowed unsupervised access to any part of the internet.
Congrats on finally finding the courage to post anonymously on the internet!
Some folks might dismiss your achievement as unremarkable, ridiculous even. But it’s clearly a huge step for you, so it’s worthy of congrats from me.
Mods, should we unsubscribe from r/the_donald
If you look to anonymous strangers on an internet site for guidance regarding your participation on other anonymous internet sites, then you probably shouldn’t be allowed unsupervised access to any part of the internet.
Idiot headline reader . . .
At last, the big reveal. Denying the evidence you unwittingly provided. Demanding I believe you, rather than my lying eyes. We've been seeing more and more of you folks lately.
The Official Story is the story that the evidence presents and no government official can change that
Uhuh. There certainly is no law against you modifying the definition of common terms to suit your needs in a given moment. The only problem with doing so is the damage to effective communication.
Once you revise the meaning of a common term such as, ‘Official Story’, then it becomes easy to corrupt others, such as ‘honest discussion’, and before you know it you have rendered yourself unable to convey even the most basic ideas.
When you give words your own experimental meanings, it’s as if banana wires hiked to a photostat.
I claimed no such thing.
Of course you did. You said ”this would happen” and linked to a story about exactly that. From the first paragraph:
- “Impeachment is Congress’s most famous, yet rarely exercised, power over wayward presidents and other federal officers.”*
So here you are, once again, proving yourself uninformed in a post accusing others of the same. You are an irony machine.
Oh, and you still have not grasped the concept that the ‘Official Story’ is the story endorsed by the AG as ’The Official Story’. That story will remain the Official Story until/unless he or another AG changes it. This, in spite of any theories or summaries advanced by you or anyone else.
You will fare much better in the public forum if your proclamations are adequately informed.
Interesting analysis.
You visit a sub that doesn't even rank among the reddit top 200.
Then you view a few of the absolutely minuscule number of posts there dealing with petty theft.
Then you apply your special form of theoretical logical and experimental discernment, and come up with a causation determinant for all redditors that support socialism.
You can get a job working forCNN.
What you seem to misunderstand, and may be shocked to hear, blah blah blah
What you misunderstand, and may be shocked to hear, is that the ‘official’ story is what the top law enforcement official says it is. Your lack of awareness here is telling.
Your claim that congress would impeach and jail Barr for suggesting something different than his initial endorsement bears further witness to the deficiencies in your understanding.
It doesn't matter how much you want him to, Barr cannot dispute the official story that Epstein killed himself because he's the Attorney General.
What? Rather than waste time directing condescending insults at folks you consider less than adequately informed, why not spend that time properly informing yourself about the scope of the federal DOJ, and the role of the AG within it.
Then revisit your claim about the AG’s inability to dispute the ‘official story’.
Props to you for composing the most ironic post I’ve seen today.
There is no indication that the left believes differently than you about the content/origins of the WikiLeaks emails.
They refer to ‘the emails’ in the same sense we do. That nomenclature serves us all as a simple reference to the aggregate, and we delineate the subsets as needed.
How do I know this about the left? Easy . . .
They have the same access to this info as we do. The same access you used to inform yourself. Plus, I suggest the left is at least as motivated as us to understand the totality of that email universe.
Your dismissal of ‘the left’ as ignorant on this topic is not reflective of a quality process of discernment.
I don’t think it doesn’t.